Turning Waves Into Particles

[@Cartilog-z4f]

Something is fundamentally wrong here. You say it is a coffee break, and yet you drink tea.

[@ehfik]

the quantum nature of fluids..

[@wolfumz]

This is an effect known as coffee-tea duality. You'll cover coffee-tea duality in another course. But, you'll need another semester of math before you can even understand the basics. Now that I'm thinking about this is something that's usually only covered in a graduate degree... you'll understand then.

[@toms-cubes-and-games]

It goes in coffee but comes out tea ;)

[@Adrian-foto]

Applied relativity :D Tea is hot water plant infusion drink as well as coffee and both tea / coffee particles suspended in water can behave as waves when you stir the drink with spoon :D

[@bytefu]

The drink interaction caused coffee to emit a caffeinon and transform into tea.

[@Euphorb1um]

With enough energy it starts looking like a game of life

[@HuygensOptics]

This thought indeed crossed my mind too when I saw how non-linear elasticity deals with stress!

[@zz77z7z7]

@@HuygensOptics Speaking of cellular automata, will be interesting to see how this model might align with Gorard and Wolfram's hypergraph model, if and when they get to that stage.

[@null-calx]

haha, exactly

[@lunafoxfire]

i think that has to do with the fact that the simulation essentially is a cellular automata using the kernel shown during the explanation of the diagonal artifacts

[@fuadhassanfaruk4540]

I think I found the cosmic scale of this phenomenon kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJ64i2WtpZafg5o

[@connormcmk]

what's fun about Huygens Optics is you've demonstrated deep technical mastery and understanding of the prevailing consensus, while also being willing to play with heresy

[@Choose.Nurture.Not.Excess]

I love that combination! (

[@WanJae42]

Understanding these concepts requires seeing the phenomenon from several different perspectives, and assembling them in your head to form a working model that suits your mentality. The perspective in your videos is original to me, and has, in several instances, been the "drop in the bucket" that's caused me to go back to quantum theories that I'd neglected with fresh eyes and eager understanding. Thank you for that.

[@effoffutube]

It's always fun to watch people try to affirm some absolute vacuum void, inventing 'dark matter' or whatever else, instead of just acknowledging that every experiment ever conducted verifies the aethereal medium's existence.

[@BioKanh]

You just blew me away. I have been speculating about the same theory and discussed it in some detail with a friend last night. You have progressed much farther than I had and I was hunting for an easy way to simulate the wave propagation. I can't thank you enough for this presentation. I have been thinking about this type of wave confinement for over 30 years, but I was approaching the puzzle using the assumption that Einstein's field equations were roughly equivalent to a change of index of refraction in space due to the presence of spacially confined energy. However, I am delighted to accept your approach as being the possible answer that at least makes intuitive sense to me.

[@PerpetualScience]

I suspect that particles are topological solitons of vacuum spacetime. I'm currently working towards reformulating vacuum GR as an Integrable System so I can test this.

[@hannybenny7632]

Me too!! Very very thank you!!!

[@ianmichael5768]

Great to see Julian Schwinger getting much deserved recognition. His 5 paper series “The theory of quantized fields”, are incredibly interesting. Matter fields and Force fields treated equally. Great work as always!

[@vaakdemandante8772]

What is absolutely astonishing about this video and general idea of vacuum being an non-linear medium, is that it's simple, intuitive and has already been proposed in some publications for at least a few decades and yet it's completely and utterly absent in mainstream academic discourse on physics of light. WTF? How is that even possible? I've studied physics for a while and thankfully ended my education on basic optics and Maxwell's equation, which is actually all you need to figure out that there has to be some kind of extension to this model to encompass all the phenomena related to light/electricity and gravity. It turns out this is precisely what the US military has been investigating for the last few decades and there are a few publications on the topic and some of the Nobel Prizes had been awarded in relation to vacuum being a non-linear medium - squeezed light comes to mind but there are others. I love this channel - it's a treasure trove of brilliant ideas and experiments that tackle the basic questions of absolutely fundamental laws of nature, that the academic world has failed to properly address.

[@wyrmofvt]

_What is absolutely astonishing about this video and general idea of vacuum being an non-linear medium, is that it's simple, intuitive and has already been proposed in some publications for at least a few decades and yet it's completely and utterly absent in mainstream academic discourse on physics of light. WTF? How is that even possible?_ In quantum field theory, electrons are proposed to be excitations of an underlying electron field. We talk about annihilation and creation operators working to convert an electron field with n electrons in it to one with n-1 and n+1 electrons in it. In a way, this _is_ mainstream. That said, this _particular_ formulation has a long way to go before it can be called anything other than speculation. The author claims that these clumps "would" have inertia, and that they "would" have a charge, but do they? If you poke one of these clumps, will it trundle off in a particular direction, as we know particles with mass/inertia do? If you push two opposing clumps together, do they annihilate, as matter-antimatter should? Is this really representing matter-antimatter and not another property, like spin? Right now, the only thing I've seen demonstrated is that the clump stays in one place. Great. Standing wave. Where's the rest of the particle properties? _there has to be some kind of extension to this model to encompass all the phenomena related to light/electricity and gravity._ Why must this extension exist? I'd venture that this is not mainstream because it's so underdeveloped that it doesn't deserve mention. It's too raw.

[@boggri]

@@wyrmofvt every bifshteks starts with a raw piece of meat) The main thing here is not to stop and continue cooking)

[@dragoscoco2173]

The vacuum might be linear until spin makes it non linear. But we have no idea what spin is so theories can include anything.

[@KnowThyFulcrum]

"thankfully ended my education on basic optics and Maxwell's equation, which is actually all you need" "vacuum being a non-linear medium - squeezed light comes to mind" There can be no expression of force without the evidence of that expression in pressures. All dimensions are tonal. All expression of force is tonal. All pressures are tonal. ~ The Universal One, chpt.14: UNIVERSAL MATHEMATICS-UNIVERSAL RATIOS (dr. walter bowman russell)

[@marcoantoniazzi1890]

The vacuum being a medium is still considered an heresy by many physicists.

[@removechan10298]

Awesome video so far, 6:51 minor clarification you're right the photon pressure is why solar sail works, but "solar wind" consists of particles, not light, such as H+, e-, He++, O+, C+, and Ne+ going at around 300 - 800 km/s, but their density over the solar sail means their effect on it is much much much lower than the ""photon""ic pressure (even tho photons do not exist ;)

[@Superkuh2]

And as an aside, there are electrostatic solar sails that use the drag of the solar wind ions against positively charged sail wires to accelerate. But they're less well developed than solar light pressure sails.

[@angeloescourt9958]

Interesting perspective. As an inventor I get these frequencies, frequencies are knowledge clusters I don't even care about. I think we should also get away from how we perceive an electron and positions of cosmic interference. Exploring this train of thoughts can help with more accurate weather patterns or anti-gravity. As a guy that can tune into the frequencies, nothing extra-ordinary will materialized until its TIME. Example: anti-gravity was ahead of its time and the scientist disappeared.

[@removechan10298]

@@angeloescourt9958 lol time doesn't exist. neither does 80% of what you just said. but ok have fun

[@Choose.Nurture.Not.Excess]

​@@removechan10298your brain is a hoax

[@cleon_teunissen]

Hi Jeroen, I haven't watched the video yet, but I'm taking he opportunity to put in an early comment. A while ago you mentioned an intention to no longer do videos that delve into the very fundamentals of physics, because of the sheer time and effort that they take. Well, I'm glad you caved.

[@HuygensOptics]

Hi Cleon,. Yes, I just had to make this video to get the idea out of my system. However, unfortunately it will be the last one for quite a while (which btw. does not mean I will never make another video). I just have other priorities right now. So don't expect any follow ups any time soon. best regards, Jeroen

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@HuygensOptics Take your time sir. But it'll be incredibly sad if u never make a video on fundamental physics.

[@Kevin-mo9bi]

@@HuygensOptics Your videos are well thought out, they take the appropriate amount of time to cover the topics at hand, and are genuinely fascinating. It reminds me of being in college, sitting in lecture, with excellent math and physics professors. Thank you for doing these videos.

[@prostytroll]

@@HuygensOptics It very nicely crystalized some of my ideas too, thank you.

[@thomasfsan]

@@HuygensOpticsI love your physics theory videos. It’s extremely refreshing to see someone so competent as you put their ideas out there.

[@tf2032]

Way to go! Me and some collaborators are playing with the same ideas. There IS a medium/substratum from which all material things emerge. Particles are self-confined fields due to the nonlinearities (solitons), they comply with the rules of special relativity and De Broglie relations when propagating, and if the rigidity of the spring lattice is perturbed, the solitons "fall down" the rigidity gradient, in other words, the falling down of heavy objects is just refraction for solitons. Keep up the good work!

[@LemonsRage]

Could you explain that? What do you mean with "the falling down of heavy objects is just refraction for solitons"?

[@douginorlando6260]

I love/respect your intuition and the approach you use to validate your intuition. It is similar but different to how i look at EM fields and stable particles. Here’s a suggestion for better modeling. Instead of 2D modeling or 3 D modeling, take advantage of symmetry. Model a small steradian solid angle wedge or cone with vertex at center of particle. The energy in the wedge at any distance R will be total energy at radius R*the wedge solid angle divided by 4*pi. The energy density at R will be that wedge energy divided by 4*pi*R^2. Now do a linear model of energy within the wedge as a function of radius and time. Instead of a model with an array of 10 by 10 locations in 2D, you can now calculate a model with 100 different radius and calculate smaller time steps. Now reduce the time increments and see how much the results change to get a feel for the error magnitude plus to extrapolate to the results as increments shrink to zero.

[@HuygensOptics]

It's definitely a good idea, thanks! But of course you can also miss properties like asymmetry or angular momentum if you make everything symmetric. Anyway, this was just a starting point for more experiments.

[@spxtrade]

This is by far one of the most important videos I have ever seen.. Perhaps one of the most important videos of all time.. Almost 6 years ago now, my father died.. He was a physicist and he instilled in me a love for the intricacies of the universe.. I have since been contemplating the origin of it all and our place within it.. A few months before I got the call that my dad was in the hospital after a colon cancer related rupture, I spoke with him on the phone and I was very excited.. I told him "pop, I think I think I have it figured out! Its all right there in Einstein's most famous equation!.. Everything is made of light!".. Skeptical as always, my dad made it seem as if I was missing something, but he didn't reply with any kind of argument.. Later, I came to understand that my impulsive conclusion lacked scientific rigor and proper knowledge of the subject matter, but this video here is very validating of my initial premise..

[@willo7734]

You are low key one of the best science related channels on this platform. I always look forward to your presentations about light and what is basically the fabric of existence. You are awesome and deserve a million subs.

[@fzigunov]

You. You need to be in the first recommendation. Always. The quality is amazing!! The thoughtfulness! Thank you so much for putting these together!

[@DavidKennyNZL]

This tries to cut through the mysticism that people put on light as wave and particle. I thought I was getting it then I blinked. Defiantly worth a rewatch.

[@drdca8263]

The way to cut through the mysticism is to do the calculations. Quantum mechanics cannot be understood without doing math. “Particle”? “Wave”? I have a state and an algebra of observables. Watch me flutter - or however that movie quote goes.

[@TheChillieboo]

Words cannot describe how much I enjoy your videos, this makes pretty heavy concept enjoyable to digest.

[@peetiegonzalez1845]

It's a strange coincidence that I (once again!) just opened Wolfram's Physics Project to try to understand how it ties in with classical models, as you describe a simplified model of matter and energy in space using cellular automata that neatly explains some fundamental properties. I had to go sleep on it 5 minutes before the video finished and rewatch the end this morning as it was late and I was nodding off at my desk. I'm sure I'll watch most of it again. Very nice!

[@evgenysavelev837]

Oh my god. I remember I got a very dismissive dirty look from my physics colleague, when I suggest this very theory to him. That the fundamental particles are basically nonlinear waves in a medium, and all the properties, like electricity, magnetism and gravity, are results of different modes of interactions between these particles. Linear waves do not interact with each other, while nonlinear waves can. There is a whole field of soliton waves, which studies exactly that, but in very limited setting of physics of electronic communication. Let me jut say, you are not crazy and I truly believe you are onto something. I arrived to this idea when I first saw the creatures of the game of life, where people constructed a lot of particle like things inside a very primitive simulation. Game of life does not have energy conservation, so it is not reflecting anything physical, but this does not mean that our world is not a collection of nonlinear waves. I remember Turing was laughed at when he discovered that finite automatons can explain patterns on cows, and now this phenomenon is called Turing patterns. I'd love to collaborate, if you are interested and need someone who can do physics simulations (I am an applied mathematician by training, and a mad scientist at heart).

[@Asaad-Hamad]

I'm really shocked. I've been developing the same principle for years since I learned about the Hasenohrl experiment which was prior to Einstein formula and he proved that energy has inertia. But since I'm not physicist it took me this long time to dive deeper into physics and I still has to do the math. Then suddenly I see everything ready in front of me done by a professional. But I would like to add something very important. He only focused on the non-linearity from strictly mathematical point of view. He has to hypothesize for many things like what is the nature of vacuum for example and what is these perturbations exactly. Then the ideas will explode. This concept needs some strange hypothesis and it can explain almost everything. There's still big room for further developments for this idea. I hope I could work with him.

[@evgenysavelev837]

@@Asaad-Hamad I would say, many of the formulae in physics are similar conjectures, one person makes a guess, and it seems to fit the experimental data. So there is nothing wrong with the assumptions in this exercise. The point was to discover whether or not a wave equation can be tweaked to get the effect of localization of waves. Pretty much spot on. As for your personal journey, thigs became so much easier and made so much sense, when I finally understood of the relations between derivatives/integrals and the real world quantities. I don't mean memorization, I mean that one day I realized what Newton was trying to do (before Newton there were no derivatives, so he basically "invented" them to do his research). It is a shame that this approach to teaching calculus is never taught in school (a few of my colleagues were motivating students with it, but they never tried to teach it as a discovery of these quantities).

[@PerpetualScience]

I’m a physics PhD student, and I suspect that particles are topological solitons of vacuum spacetime. I'm currently working towards reformulating vacuum GR as an Integrable System so I can test this. It’s quite sad your colleague was so dismissive about this. The physics GR professors at my college are quite disinterested in my work as well.

[@Asaad-Hamad]

@@PerpetualScience Roger Penrose devolved the full theory for same idea. I strongly suggest to go through his work first then develop it further so you avoid the trap of reinventing the wheel. Best luck.

[@Asaad-Hamad]

@@evgenysavelev837 I'm might be mistaken in my hypothy. But if we assumed this weird property in vacuum then we can have non-linearity for specific waves. But it will go further and explain many other things that wasn't in my intention to explain. That's why I strongly believe in his theory. Anyhow it's pleasure to make assumptions which fit the mathematical patterns rather than spending time doing nothing or living normal life. Who knows? with more trails may I come closer to the most possible one.

[@PaulMarostica]

Great job! It's refreshing for me to see others who are also theorizing using observables rather than unobservables. Particles have observable fields, not unobservable wave functions.

[@seltsamliebe]

Thank you for this - and for your channel in general! I have come here some years ago due to an interest in lenses and optics, and been an avid watcher ever since. Your insight has made me realize the central role that wave mechanics occupies to understanding reality, and your witty and heartfelt humor makes me think about the role of amusement in consciousness. Huygens Optics occupies the same level of relevance as Carl Sagan, Peter Singer, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins in my head - you have truly changed the way that I perceive the world. That is not something I say lightly, and I really do mean it. You changed what the world is to my eyes. Thank you for kindling an interest for physics in me!

[@BillStrathearn]

Thank you so very much for putting in the time and effort into visualizing this concept. I've been watching a lot of YT videos about particle physics for many years and this is the first one to actually help make sense of the wave/particle duality of photos (and other elementary particles)

[@cxn8]

I really appreciate your advancing of a clear and understandable approach to the seemingly completely unintuitive wave-particle duality. If, instead of considering light as some weird, capricious, sometimes-wave sometimes-particle, students were simply taught that light is a wave that *interacts* in a quantized manner, much confusion would be cleared up. When teaching, I like to use a "money in the bank" analogy for light and the electromagnetic field. When you go up to a teller to deposit money in an account, you do so in quantized amounts. You don't put in 1/3 of a 1 euro cent into your bank account. It is possible for the bank to then do business with your money, perhaps not in quantized amounts. A constant rate interest payment may not end up being a round number down to the cent. However, when you actually withdraw money from your account, it will always be quantized in the same manner as the money you put in. When you put a single photon into an interferometer, and it interferes with itself, that is because that photon's worth of light does not have to remain localized and quantized in the same manner it entered. It interacts with itself as a wave. However, when that photon comes out of the interferometer and hits a detector, it *will* do so in a localized and quantized manner; you will find that the photon strikes a single spot on the detector.

[@removechan10298]

21:08 good to see the brand loyalty!! 21:29 the sheer attention to detail and flex that you have a better selection ... I have to go ordering some now - happy 2025!

[@mykhailomoroz5296]

You should check out the 2D version of the Sine-Gordon equation (which is a wave equation with a nonlinear sin(u) term). It produces localized solitonic wave solutions called "breathers". I think this is much closer to what you were searching for, they would be spherically symmetric and conserve energy.

[@jerrymartinson6924]

100% my thoughts exactly

[@manuelorrego3314]

Please go with this!

[@mykhailomoroz5296]

For anyone wondering, I've already made a simulation of this equation years ago kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zn-9imOwmt6IsNk

[@Robert-p7b]

Solitons migh be pairs of gluons in the vacuum space. 🤔

[@leoberges1705]

I wonder if you stumbled upon the Encyclopedia of Nonlinear Science, which is a particularly interesting book on the general subject of non-linear science (filled with exemples of solitons, which are the "particles" you are simulating). You might already know about optical solitons, rogue waves, skyrmions and other types of solitons that appear in non-linear fields. Actually there are quite interesting quotes on the idea of solitons to describe particles to be be found in De Broglie papers, around Bohmian mecanics, or even in some of the later researches of Einstein that hinted a long time ago the importance of non-linear terms to stabilize these very peculiar excitations. I have a simple, general introduction of these references in my PhD manuscript if you want to find those. Thank you so much for your researches, you have such an interesting take on the subjects you tackle, takes that would benefit so much to be broadly used !

[@shadowdragon2484]

that PhD manuscript sounds interesting where could I find it?

[@PerpetualScience]

Do you have any good sources I could use to learn more about solitons and Integrable Systems, enough that I could simulate them? I would like to reformulate General Relativity as an Integrable System so that I can find vacuum solutions using Scattering Data and the Inverse Scattering Transform. I’ve already found coordinate conditions which cause the Zero-Curvature Equation to be satisfied, so it should be possible to do this. Any and all help would be extremely appreciated! Thank you! Also, if you respond, make sure KZbin doesn’t delete your comment, it likes doing that without telling people.

[@pawanharish]

One of the best videos I've ever seen. I've always wondered how energy converts into particles, this gives such a good explanation of it. This should be taught in every physics class.

[@Monkey_D_Luffy56]

THAT'S THE COOLEST THUMBNAIL I'VE EVER SEEN!!! As you scroll it's like moving

[@Internet-Antics]

Best 5am watch ever!!!! This was absolutely FACINATING! I took a non-linear optics class (best class I ever took) and this scratches all of those itches! Also, thanks for the snacks, I needed em! 11/10, would (will) recommend to all my grad school mates.

[@Naomi_Boyd]

The average length of a vibrating string is greater than that of the string at rest. The surface area of your tea increases when you tap the cup. In three dimensions, one would expect a change in the average volume of the fluctuating medium of a confined wave. This local displacement would cause stress on the surrounding medium. If the medium were liquid or gas, that stress would radiate away in the form of a pressure wave. If it were solid however, the stress would remain localized around the point of focus and fall off with the inverse square law. As far as we know, transverse acoustic waves only occur in solids, and stress affects their propagation rate. Suppose stress, on the vacuum surrounding a particle, reduces the speed of light. Light would curve inward toward the center of mass. And if particles are made of light, they would bend the same way. Gravity would just be a lens, and the change in the speed of light would perfectly account for gravitational time dilation. Relativity explains the failure of Michelson and Morley, and the medium they were looking for, explains relativity. The observer is a light clock.

[@HuygensOptics]

Yep. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who looks at the universe in this way (;-)

[@bazzaar1869]

With respect and apologies but my engineer brain immediately baulked at your first sentence. String I have come across in life does not change length in use.

[@jamesyoungquist6923]

​@@bazzaar1869well just try it. Cut a length of string, tie it to door handle and pull. Your energy input will compress the empty space between fibers due to their natural springiness and the string gets longer

[@MachiningandMicrowaves]

@@bazzaar1869 If you have some magic inelastic string, it will not vibrate because if you try to pluck it, it will be infinitely stiff and will not move as to do so, it would have to stretch a little

[@Sokofeather]

We're assuming an elastic string with set endpoints. No vibration without minute changes - the bounce back is created by the stretch- and- tug back to its minimum, slowly using up the stretching energy built up in the system (from pluck)

[@ReidAtcheson]

Thanks for sharing this and your detailed explanation. I'm tempted to try this same simulation with a spectral method to better resolve higher frequencies and some adjustments to time stepping to see if some of the instability you observe is spurious and simply a numerical artifact

[@danielkruyt9475]

Something worth looking into is to find out if your simulation can be implemented by a "symplectic integrator". These integrators are specifically designed to model the time evolution of Hamiltonian systems and have the remarkable property that the energy error of the system is bounded by a function of the timestep rather than at-least-linearly increasing with time. However note that it *only* works for Hamiltonian systems, and I'm not entirely sure that this system is Hamiltonian...

[@HuygensOptics]

It is a good suggestion, because energy is really an issue here. On the one hand you cannot restrict it's movement to a cell, but on the other hand there is this non-linearity that constantly tries to generate free energy from changes in field. So you need to somehow correct for the non-linearity locally in the simulation.

[@miklov]

Fascinating. Apparently there is a theory about ball lightning involving solitons in the electrical field. Thank you for another truly interesting and engaging video. Quickest 45 minutes in years!

[@MinusMedley]

Good show! Glad to see there are folks trying it experimentally. The only answer is electro-magnetic resonance, the frequency determines the resulting particle and vice-versa, stick with me till the end and I will ellaborate on your findings. Why do I say this? When considering the stress and strain from elasticity, the "path of least energy" will always manifest as resonance, it's the purest form of oscillation between two extremes, without "deformation" of the energy source/wave. There's perfect example of this type of physical interaction happening right now above our heads, and we have been recording it's stress and strain curves for decades now, it's called a solar butterfly diagram. I beleive this to be the true source of star formation, when a sufficient amount of gas gathers around a local point (Density). An existing energy wave in the region is allowed to confine the gas into it's pherical shape. You then speak about the non-linearity created by the changing stress, this "excess" energy has to go somewhere, the sun's surface is only stable at certain phases of the cycle implying that there is indeed a linear elastic region during each oscillation. Since resonance naturally results in the build up of energy, it has to be released somehow. Be it in the form of internal pressure, heat, light, solar wind, gamma or alpha radiation, "particle" decay is necessary for the stability you're looking for.

[@ralph9645]

Very thought provoking, thank you! The next thing that comes to mind is to experiment with the "particles", e.g. make them collide and see what happens at a microscopic wave and stress level.

[@Malk007]

This is amazing! I experimented a bit with a similar model while studying quantum mechanics. I looked at the resonance frequencies (energy levels) from the "particle in a box" model in schroedingers equation and compared to a 1-D box EM resonator frequencies. Then I modified the 1-D resonator to have a material with dispersion characteristics that would give the same frequencies. That yielded a model where mass was the cause of the dispersion in the material. It was quite a neat model but in that mass was a parameter, this one has mass as an intrisinc property of the confined wave! Amazing, can't wait to see what comes next!

[@dragoscoco2173]

That is a very interesting modeling, thank you for it. Non linearity might not be all of it though. I would like to point out some interesting hints from experiments. 1.) -e +p production happens as far as experiments go mostly near atomic nuclei or other particles of significant charge, and never simply in a vacuum. This is a pair production constraint hinting at mechanisms. 2.) Spin gets created, somehow, which might imply that non linearity is only stable with or a consequence of it. 3.) The polarization of the Gamma in -e +p production determines the detection of the resulting -e +p in a plane (within experimental tolerances). There is a very definite geometric constrain right there. 4.) -e +p annihilation does not simply recreate the initial gamma, or 2 half energy Gammas. It easily results in 3 or even 4 Gammas. This implies a very complex interaction. 5.) This one is a bit off but interesting. Were the electron to fall into the proton in a single hydrogen atom, it would attain more energy than contained in a simple neutron. Meaning the reverse process of neutron decay cannot release the electron out of the neutron, but it needs to spring into existence slightly farther from it.

[@rosariopullano3424]

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! You have to publish your result on a scientific magazine. I thanks give you for all your efforts. You have made a very good job. So particles are stationary waves. Really gourgeous work. Well done!

[@ariebaudoin4824]

i agree that it is a nice video, but he has shown no such thing, only that this is perhaps a viable theory, but there are no empirical claims or calculations in this video, its just computer simulations

[@rosariopullano3424]

@ariebaudoin4824 These are very meaningful computer simulation. The further implication that particles are stationary waves. This also open the way to empirical experimentations. Till to the proof that the standard model is a fake model.

[@drdca8263]

@@rosariopullano3424”a fake model” : what do you even mean by this?

[@rosariopullano3424]

@@drdca8263 I mean that the standard model is not a scientific model because it is not falsifiable. It means that there is no way to proof it is wrong. Qauarks are only an USA inventions but you cannot proof that becuse they say that the bond energy is so high that when it breaks it form other particles. So they have never proof the existence of quarks but no one can disproof. This is exactly fake science.

[@bloviatingbeluga8553]

You are, by FAR, my favorite channel on KZbin

[@killerguppy2988]

Absolutely fascinating! I love the visualizations. I've done a lot of FEA coding for engineering, so I really appreciate the sims you've done.

[@empmachine]

Argh... I have to be somewhere and can't finish the video... and it's sooooo cool!!! Well I guess future-me has a mental treat saved for later. Just a few minutes in and I'm totally hooked/engaged/interested; you are getting really good at this-all!

[@DaveEtchells]

Absolutely fascinating. At the boundaries of my understanding, but I think you’re touching on some truly foundational elements here.

[@andreasboe4509]

Beautiful. If you use a hexagonal grid, the distance between the cells is the same to all neighbors. Also: A real world mechanical example of frozen state springs is a flip switch.

[@lunafoxfire]

oh this is a nice idea

[@glennlaugesen5276]

Yes - I think you are hitting the proverbial nail on the head here, Jeroen, with this approach and your simulations are a great tool for exploring this - keep going. I have come to the same conclusion: that matter and the subatomic 'particles' (oh, how I hate that word for all of its misdirecting historical/lexical baggage) that it is 'built' from is a set of constrained, lossless standing waves in the background vacuum energy field. This description seems to capture all the behavioural features of matter and also offers a doorway into explaining the fields between them as energy gradients or stresses in the vacuum energy field created by the localized concentration of energy in these resonant structures. I would like to suggest a different framing of the finding that you have towards the end of the video around seeing the resulting deformation of the vacuum energy in the successful simulation as a static displacement, though. Not as an argument - just as a different way to express the concept in a way that still holds to a wave-like description. And that is this:- Ask yourself this question - 'what does a constrained standing wave (a resonance, if you like) in a lossless medium look like?'. One answer you may arrive at is what you visualized - it would appear like a static displacement in that medium. Another way to express that is that it is a self-constrained resonance in the vacuum energy field, with the constraint mechanism being implemented/controlled by the specific values assigned to the elasticity variables. There are a couple of directions to go from here (well, there are many, but I'll throw out two here): - 1. Is it possible to calculate what values those elasticity variables might be for 'our' vacuum energy field, given that we know the wavelength and dimensions of some of these 'particles'? Yes - I see that we have two unknown variables, so it isn't going to be trivial. Perhaps some more physical data could constrain the ranges of possible values. 2. If you want to (and yes, I acknowledge that it would be a lot of work), your 2D simulation could be extended to 3D (actually, really 4D if you are after a more realistic simulation as we need at least one extra dimension it would seem to 'make' stable 3D matter as we experience it) by re-expressing it in complex numbers. I know, I said that rather glibly, as if it were easy to do, which I acknowledge it very much isn't! But, bear with me - as a kind of sideways reference to what I am getting at, as well as pointing to a possible simulation engine in which to work, if you haven't already, I would recommend that you watch the 3Blue1Brown video on 'Visualizing Quaternions' here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mmWomJWdidJjeMksi=8shrmpBj-n--HpVh and the follow-up video on 'Quaternions and 3d rotation, explained interactively' here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sJuwpnyuh9usnbM. The reason for referencing these is that I would argue that matter is in fact, a kind of stereographic projection (into 3D) of a 4D standing wave in the vacuum energy field. I know this could be a bunch of crackpot ideas, and I'll happily accept that criticism as I don't have much more than a modest amount of tertiary education in Electrical Engineering, a persistent curiosity about the nature of reality and a few decades of casual self-learning and exploration to back that up, but once you watch those videos, and think about the very thing that you have explored in your video, you could see possibly how your idea/visualization simulation could be tweaked to see if it can produce simulations of the fine-structure of some known sub-atomic particles in 3D (well, 4D really). I just thought I'd throw this into the virtual wind to see if it can fly as I like what you are doing. It reminds me of 19th and early 20th-century physicists and the grounded way that they explored the nature of reality.

[@chatch15117]

Ya the 4D is on track

[@Porcupine-t1h]

Please share your diet so we can all get as smart as you are. But in all seriousness this is absolutely fantastic and you putting it out there deserve a Nobel prize! The applications are enormous! Thanks!

[@soweliLuna]

this is exactly the sort of theory ive been wondering about, i love this once youve addressed simulation limitations, i really hope to see more interactions demonstrated you should demonstrate that particles conserve momentum, you should experiment with interactions between particles and between particles and waves, and demonstrate that particles can be collapsed back into unconfined waves through interactions

[@bearmike_360KB]

Wow. That's. Incredible. I guess this is my official introduction to quantum. Don't understand how, but it just works. It's finally makes sense that how particals can be a wave. It's just a property of the vacuum. Thanks.

[@agxryt]

Not sure if this was the goal but i finally understand the relationship between gas pressure due to density snd water pressure due to gravity. Thanks! Been struggling with that for years

[@bertholtappels1081]

Fascinating. This obviously took a lot of time to produce, but consider the contribution to society it represents: tens of thousands of eyeballs eagerly lapping up what amounts to some of three densest and most abstract knowledge humankind possesses. Consider that there’s a nonzero chance that a future Nobel laureate gets their spark from your work, much higher than just reading traditional scientific publications.

[@airman2468]

A fan and a skeptic here, but cautiously intrigued by this presentation. You have done an exceptional job in laying this out. Not sure if someone mentioned it, but while watching the simulations, I was picturing a modification of any of the algorithms used to render diagonal lines smoothly to equilibrate the energy values in concentric circles. That way, you can still use a compute shader for the heavy lifting of the calculation, but achieve an axisymmetric distribution. May or may not be easy. Thanks for a great video!

[@weasel.3683]

I thought he used a python script xD

[@MachiningandMicrowaves]

Well that was EXACTLY what I needed to get my braincells working again after wearing them out from two solid days of FDTD electromagnetic simulations. I was intending to machine some parts on the CNC, but the temperature in the machine shop is less than 272 K this evening. Thanks for the diversion!

[@wesleyooms]

35:30, this curve is also seen in for example tire slip or foil lift. In case of tire slip, the force rubber can transmit saturates and with even more slip, the force even decreases. For tires on a vehicle, this is both in longitudinal as in lateral direction. There are several models for this (a famous one is the Delft tire model), but basically when there's too much slip, the slip changes from micro slip into macro slip o the whole contact area is slipping.(so the cure is force on y-axis, and slip on x-axis. slip is either dimensionless, or has units of distance (meters), or angle(e.g. degrees), depending on how you define it.). For airfoils, this curve occurs when you draw lift force against angle of attack. Also there, the higher the angle of attack, the more lift force. up to an angle where the foil stalls and the force saturates and eventually decreases. It's a very interesting curve because I see it reoccurring in some very interesting situations in nature. The curve makes sense in the way that nature is nonlinear, but stable. Only if at the limits it goes to a defined value can nature be stable.

[@adikumar6536]

I will never use this information in the future, but I'm glad KZbin recommended this to me anyway

[@cjjy1012]

Im thinking about this for about two.years now, but didnt know how to put it in words. Your way of thought will make possible fundamental cosmological simulations

[@brianstuart3499]

Fascinating. I feel like I'm going to have to watch this several times to really understand it. But it is an interesting look at something that I always felt intuitively should be the case.

[@denispol79]

Thanks! The ability to dismantle and explain complex concepts is a gift!

[@JohannSwart_JWS]

I think your simulations will greatly benefit from a polar coordinate transformation. Yes, you'll still have artifacts, but they may be easier to deal with. Your conclusions will of course not be altered. 👍👍👍

[@HuygensOptics]

Yes, at least that will make it easier to keep them symmetric. It will additionally increase the speed of the simulations.

[@eilmiv]

If the simulation is circularly symmetric, maybe even just a single 1D-line could be computed and later be revolved to generate the image. That could be much more efficient, allowing for higher resolution and smaller step size. But of course, developing a general simulation that does not require circular symmetry is the better time investment...

[@patrickfle9172]

This is a lot to think about. Highly appreciated! Thank you. ❤

[@null-calx]

didn't fully understand how the part about 'wave getting stuck at higer stress', will probably need a few more rewatches, apart from that this video made me reimagine how the universe works, always a charm to see your videos

[@Audio_noodle]

The moment you mentioned the Schwinger limit, something in my brain clicked, related to a recent PBS Spacetime video about electrons and how the non linearity of vacuum could counteract the energy shooting to infinity in smaller and smaller scales.

[@removechan10298]

The video i've been waiting for!

[@peetiegonzalez1845]

I had been hoping for (and half expecting) a video on holograms, but since Grant (3b1b) already did a great job on that, and this kind of model happens to coincide very nicely with Wolfram's increasing coverage, I'll gladly take this!

[@echolambda]

This is so cool. It both makes sense and breaks intuition. Sadly the simulation at high energies, high frequencies and changing parameters are hard to do. While the general idea is correct i think you need to re-derive the simulations equations with stiffness being non-const. Then there is the issue of simulating stiff equations and that might need either very very small time steps or higher order equations (e.g. bigger laplace kernel) or implicit vs explicit formulation. The issue (if i understand the theory) is that the simulation has a maximum allowed limit of interaction speed and if you try to simulate something that depends on interaction propagating higher speed you get non-physical effects. Another idea to work around it is changing the scale. Maybe changing the "size" of the particle would behave better - but that probably involves making the stiffness more non-linear and thus breaking other parts...

[@UserMist]

This is an amazing result! Back in 2016 I had experimented with similar ideas, although instead of waves, I sticked to massless particles. The model was absurdly simple, but to my surprise it managed to perfectly recreate relationship between relativistic velocity and momentum according to special relativity. I then tried to further explore that idea with a wave simulation I wrote, but eventually gave up - I had no idea how to make waves interact with each other for more complex systems to exist. It would be nice to try something like it again, using your explanations as a basis. It is my life-long dream to make a simulation that perfectly describes special relativity at such low-level, without ever making use of spacetime coordinates. I have a few ideas left to explore regarding electromagnetism and gravity too, which are at least worth discussing. And I even thought about releasing a couple videos this year for this exact subject, if things go well.

[@ed.puckett]

Thank you so very much for this video. It has been occupying my mind all day. What a beautiful concept, and so clearly explained.

[@removechan10298]

40:48 this is incredible, I need to watch it twice (or three times as usual with your videos) to fully grasp this

[@jeryuen6563]

The thumbnail for this, the way it flickers as I scroll, greatly reminds me of one of my favorite cd covers of all time, 'spatial specific ' by legion of green men. It had a spiral pattern of colours which was then masked through a clear film that had a similar spiral in black. Every movement would flit and shift the black over the colours. Mesmerizing.

[@Markoul11]

Great eye opening video! Bravo! Btw, there is actually a self-contained type of wave thus a soliton, it is called vortex :)

[@Rubikorigami]

hi ! Have you heard about the framework MEEP for optics simulations ? It supports lots of stuff and is extremely powerful - used it when I was a student to estimate Purcell coefficients of semiconducting Bragg mirror resonators. I think its supports nonlinearity out of the box too, as well as eigensolvers, cylindrical coordinates, and lots of other stuff :)

[@HuygensOptics]

Never heard of it but I will check it out. Thanks for the tip!

[@ac12484]

This is so good! I thought about this abstractly, and this is such a good explanation of possible details!

[@Anders01]

Exciting possibility. My amateur guess is that everything is vacuum energy which is "soup" of waves, and particles arise when the vacuum energy becomes structured in certain ways. And that all forces are gradients in the vacuum energy, not just the Casimir force but all forces, including gravity.

[@VSK314]

Amazing video. And listening to you is so calming

[@KurtCollier]

Growing up as a teen in the 90's-I always thought "the schwinger zone" was just anywhere within 10 meters of Tia Carrere or Guess Jeans girl Heather Locklier. It feels good to know the correct meaning and have some idea about what it is. On my 2nd watch- I hope after the 3rd or 4th repetition I will start to understand a little bit of what you are sharing with us. That is not a complaint- I am dumb and want to understand. I really learn a lot from your videos.

[@AJMansfield1]

Feels like you mostly just need to use a better integration method like RK4 to reduce the accumulated error, and use a 5x5 Laplacian kernel instead of a 3x3 one to reduce the effect of the grid symmetry.

[@rogerscottcathey]

What's most interesting is the suggestion that space has vibrational properties. The question of an incompressible"ether" as a continuum vs individual, closely packed entities leads to confounding questions. All we can do is keep on with experience and experiment editing the concepts and theories to a minimal useable baseline.

[@icaleinns6233]

Wow, that was extremely well explained! Very easy to understand. I was always curious about a possible mechanism for condensing energy into matter.

[@thom1218]

Surprised the Breit-Wheeler pair production process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breit%E2%80%93Wheeler_process) didn't get a mention here. See experiments done under the heading "Multiphoton Breit-Wheeler experiments". Waves to particles has already been experimentally observed at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in '97.

[@mysock351C]

Pair production is a relatively common occurrence in real life. Example would be scintillators used for detection of gamma rays. Once the energy is above around 1 Mev positron-electron pairs become energetically favorable and are produced in the vicinity of the nuclei. In small detector geometries the pairs produced will add additional features to a spectra from both escape and annihilation.

[@michaelbedford2993]

During the part right around 33:33 , that simulation might be a lot closer to something we're overlooking. I'm thinking a long the lines of during that simulation you did infact forge a particle from sheer energy, but in the sense of the way you were talking about every molecule being a condensed form of light... If you tweak the numbers of that simulation you could forge different particles from the energy condensing in different locations.. the negative and positive areas being the different electrons and protons that come together to create covalent bonds and all that good stuff.. hard for me to elaborate more with my elementary understanding but I do believe you were on to something, granted you refined it I still have more of the video to watch at this point lol but bear with me! Thanks professor you taught me a lot and blew my mind!

[@omargoodman2999]

I see two possibilities here: 1) For a stable particle to exist, its energy must continually increase; therefore if every particle's energy is increasing, there needs to be a counteractive force ensuring that *average* energy density remains constant. By "diluting" the ever increasing energy with "more space" to keep a constant average density, this could potentially explain Dark Energy. 2) The simulation collapses because it's limited to two dimensions. In three dimensions, there are more degrees of freedom and, thus, additional vectors to "store" energy and prevent it from dissipating. Perhaps simulating using complex numbers, such that instead of simply two real axes you have two real *and* two imaginary axes, it would preserve its own energy at a constant value. Quaternions could possibly do this. But coming up with a quaternion formula to describe the energy would be a nightmare, I'm guessing.

[@zaktoid3558]

This is so beautifull I'm doing my master's thesis on dynamical systems/artificial life Good insights !!

[@ricardojuliao84]

For me The most WONDERFUL slkce is that The explanation about The original of inercia

[@76Eliam]

Absolutely mind-blowing video. When I was in high school I wanted to write a science fiction book in which the human can achieve faster-than-light travel by "propelling" droplet-shaped regions of space so that it "merges" with space at a destination position. Imagine two surfaces of open water facing each other (they have both their own gravitational field that maintain the surface locally flat and facing each other). If you start to purposely apply a periodic perturbation at a given position on the surface A, it will create concentric ripples at the surface, propagating outward. And if you confine this propagation and choose the right perturbation, kind of resonant frequency of the surface, the amplitude will keep going until a droplet separate from the surface A. And if you use the correct amount of energy the droplet can be propelled until it reaches the surface B with which the droplet will merge. You can also imagine that surface A and B are actually the same surface, but they are facing each other because the surface is curved like a sheet of crumpled fabric. Now transpose this idea from 2D surfaces to 3D spacetime continuum. The machine from the book was able to propel "droplets" of space through higher dimension in order to merge it with another location in the universe. The four main problems humans were facing in this universe were : - you don't know where you will end unless you know how the universe is curved : you have to "aim" toward the right place to be "caught", any error can lead to to be "caught" by another region of the universe; - wherever you are there are places that cannot be reached from your place. Think a crumpled ball-shaped sheet of paper : starting from a point on the sheet, if you go straight on any direction you will intersect with the nearest opposing surface of the paper but you can't directly reach the layer of paper behind; - the universe (in this book) is a finite, curved and closed manifold, but on specific places if you aim in the "wrong" direction, the machine will send you _out of the universe_, in nothingness. Using the crumpled paper ball, imagine being on the outside of the paper ball and leaving the ball in the direction pointing away from the ball. Any imaginary droplet leaving the paper will continue to go in straight line forever, never crossing another part of the paper ball. This is deeply scary ! - the machine can only propel a "droplet" smaller than itself that is _in_ the machine (think a cannon that propel a bullet), so the smallest teleporting machine cannot transport a smaller teleporting machine, so once you've been teleported you cannot return unless you build a machine locally. The amount of energy needed in absolutely insane, close to a civilisation of type I on Kardashev scale, leading the humans to start to create a Dyson spheres to travel across the Universe. So when I was in post-secondary education I started to investigate if it could be related to real physics - just because I like hard-SF and I don't want this central piece of the story based on complete nonsense - and sadly I realized that the idea of deforming the spacetime continuum at its resonant frequency could not work, because in order to have a resonant frequency, spacetime would need to be elastic and have a "surface tension" (or rather an equivalent "volume tension" in higher dimension). As I thought - and read- that the universe could not have "volume tension" nor elasticity-related properties, I concluded that the idea for this teleportation machine was not believable enough to be included in my book. And now you tell me that spacetime could in theory have non-linear elastic properties, and even that it could result in matter emerging from energy waves ? That's insane. Of cours I get it you're not claiming that it's how it work in real world, but this theory gives me some grist for my story.

[@drdca8263]

Are you familiar with the concept of gravitational waves? My understanding is that if you take the linear approximation of something in general relativity (which is a good approximation in certain contexts), you get something that can support waves. Iirc something in that linear approximation can be interpreted as something a little bit like a “stiffness” . Iirc if interpreted that way, the answer to “how stiff?” is “very stiff”. I don’t think it suggests that there would be any particular resonant frequency though.

[@mellathomas5065]

I'm so happy the KZbin algorithm suggested this video to me! Maybe your theory isn't exactly the way it works but it looks plausible and provides one way that "waves" could become "particles", taking some of the "you just have to accept and believe it because the math works" out of quantum mechanics.

[@thewitheredfigtree]

Extremely interesting. I wonder if the parameters of elasticity could explain the three generations of particles we observe in the standard model. There could be islands of stability, but whose confined energy is easy released by small perturbations of the vacuum. A long-term stable particle would exist where the perturbation energy is much higher than the vacuum energy.

[@JoshuaPalley]

My thought was that these might arise naturally once the simulation is increased from two to three spatial dimensions.

[@taliesinbeynon]

Maybe already a suggested, but you can maybe use a symplectic integrator to preserve total energy across simulation updates? Also, there’s an old idea that pseudo-particles arise related to lattice defects in an elastic medium, I’ll allow Claude to dig this up for us if you forgive me: “Yes! You're referring to dislocations in crystal lattices and their particle-like behavior. This was primarily developed by Frank Nabarro, Nevill Mott, and others in the 1940s-50s. Edge and screw dislocations in crystals were found to have several particle-like properties: 1. They have an effective mass due to the strain field they carry 2. They experience forces and can accelerate 3. At high velocities (approaching the speed of sound in the crystal), they exhibit relativistic-like effects including: - Length contraction - Mass increase - A maximum velocity (the speed of sound plays the role that c plays for real particles) The mathematical description of these effects turned out to be formally similar to relativistic mechanics, though operating at much lower speeds. The sound speed in crystals acts as a limiting velocity similar to how the speed of light acts for real particles. The analogy also extends to "charges" - the Burgers vector of a dislocation (which describes how the crystal lattice is disrupted) acts somewhat like an electric charge, with dislocations of opposite Burgers vectors attracting each other. This was an fascinating example of how particle-like behavior can emerge from purely classical mechanics in a continuous medium, and provided some interesting insights into the nature of particles and fields. Since this topic is quite specialized and from historical materials, although I've aimed to be accurate, you may want to double-check these specific details.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​“

[@tissuepaper9962]

i cannot forgive you. the next time you casually use AI like this, imagine pouring a liter of drinking water on the ground and lighting 10ml of gasoline on fire. That's how much water and energy is wasted for *every 200 words* written by AI. You're killing the earth because you're too lazy to do basic research.

[@KayleeKerin]

Thank you, this gives me some great reading material!

[@taliesinbeynon]

@@tissuepaper9962 firstly, LLMs are appropriate at doing associative lookup, especially when it’s a vague or obscure topic. I would myself reserve the term “laziness” for the endless use of LLMs to write boilerplate code or google common knowledge. But I’m pretty skeptical of the implicit premise here? If a human librarian did the same task they would consume vastly more resources by their existence. So are you an anti-natalist? The many ordinary (but technically optional) things that almost everyone does in the developed world would far outweigh occasional LLM usage. I suggest allocating your moral outrage accordingly 🙃

[@tissuepaper9962]

@@taliesinbeynon a human librarian wouldn't have to caveat everything they say with "this might be completely false and hallucinated information" and they would give a list of citations to continue your research. i will not "direct my moral outrage elsewhere", clearly you understand how wasteful and exploitative AI is because you asked for forgiveness for even using it. AI is class warfare.

[@tissuepaper9962]

@@taliesinbeynon furthermore, research is not like riding a bicycle, the more you rely on the lazy solution, the less capable you become at doing research yourself.

[@jimgraham6722]

Thanks, I am sure you are headed in the correct direction. I think the physics of solitons, object like waves, also sheds light on the issue.

[@johnschmidt1262]

Extraordinary, I had wondered for other reasons if particles were the result of self containing solutions to quantum wave equations.

[@doctorscoot]

Thank you good sir! One of the best videos I’ve seen attempting a simple explanation of wave particle duality from basic principles. Also how can I not trust someone who has such fine budgerigar friends! 😊

[@WilliamLund-o1d]

This is really interesting. I want to see more of this. I want to see how these particles interact with each other and waves.

[@86congtymienbac80]

The grid and spring system seems to be inadequate to simulate a continuous environment. In addition to compression and tension as normal stress, shear resistance must also be considered. In addition to compression and tension deformation, angular deformation of the nodes must also be considered.

[@cambrendn]

Based on your explanation at 31:39, I'm wondering if the simulation is using a modified Euler method. There are methods to improve the stability without shortening the timesteps, e.g. RK4. It involves some calculus, but it is quite a bit better. I've seen other comments recommending purpose-built software, which would probably be best, but if you're planning to stick with modifying your current code, RK4 is something to look at.

[@gedaliakoehler6992]

Really enjoyed this video! My lab group studies nonlinear optics and solitons so this was right at home.

[@franciscoferreira-eh1yu]

Im just a quite bad eletronics technician and I have no clue of what your videos are really about (in the sense that my math skills are not good enough to grasp into the formulas you presented) and still I love to watch it.

[@magma90]

This is very intriguing. Something similar happens in quantum chromodynamics, where because the gluons have non-linear interactions at basically all energy levels, they self confine and create glueballs, generating a massive particle from the interaction of massless particles.

[@julioperez-delgadojr2976]

Wonderful simulation, your point of view seems to represent the components and the interactions of all things that exist. I would hope more likeminded individuals may find your videos, and that you find a breakthrough within your research. If one could cheat somehow and confine these waves without requiring such high amount of disturbance in the medium, so much would be then possible that people would take me for a fool if I told them.

[@onkkke]

this video comes at such a perfect moment for me, I am constantly exploring questions about this stuff and cant answer some...so thank you edit: this makes so much sense

[@trumanhw]

Wooooow. The pressure difference = inertia _in a box_ = beautiful edu. And, it reminded me: Educo (education's etymological-root word) ... means _to draw out._ If Socrates himself chose the best word to reinforce how he thought teaching someone should best occur.

[@donatoc4143]

This was incredibly interesting. Thank you!

[@dfgaJK]

This is a fantastic video as it is tangibly understandable, such that it was interesting and engaging, despite the physics being far beyond my understanding.

[@BerikVisschers]

I’m not a specialist, is this a big breakthrough in theoretical physics? Amazing theory and really well explained, thank you!

[@weasel.3683]

no, it's a guy doing numerical field simulations for fun, but also doing confusingly good explanations of real physics along the way. I feel like that makes people ask this/your question.

[@youngbloodbear9662]

This is very impressive, i think it would be interesting to demonstrate interactions that mirror other properties of light and matter

[@AlexRettig_cl]

Your video presents a theory that could bring us closer to understanding materiality as an emergent property of energy. Years ago, a documentary by naturalists gave a Rubik's cube to an orangutan and showed how the orangutan explored it and ended up breaking it. It seems to me to be analogous to the LHC research: Just as the mind of the orangutan is far from understanding the meaning of the Rubik's cube, so we are far from understanding the meaning of the particles of the atom. I appreciate and thank you for your dedication in sharing your well-structured ideas in a direction of observations that could bring us closer to a greater understanding of the meaning of the Whole.